I have a difficult time accepting quality definitions that are fuzzy. In all other consumer products, quality control is very defined; not nebulous. In my opinion, when most people talk about wine quality, they are really talking about wine style; critics are always more concerned with wine style than quality, and they sometimes even rate wines highly for style without looking at their basic quality failures.
This generated some push-back from the class, with some great points made. I don't think it would be fair to the other students to upload their comments here without permission, so I will leave to to anyone who comes across this here to challenge my thinking. Please do so if you disagree, I am not afraid to rethink and refine my definition of quality in light of good points from others. And what does quality mean to you?
Cheers! -N.R. Carlson
--------------------------------------
What does Wine Quality mean to me?
I have definite prejudices regarding what is and what is not a quality wine. This tends to strongly influence choices that I make in winemaking, and sets off my alarm bells when clients or other winemakers favor winemaking philosophy over good practice and critical thinking. Here is my hierarchy of criteria, starting from basic wine quality, and progressing towards increasing quality. In my opinion, one may NOT skip over any of these criteria to the next level of quality without satisfying each point in the previously defined level.
1.) The first responsibility of a wine is that it should be stable when it goes into the bottle, and remain stable for the projected lifespan of that given product. If a wine cannot meet this basic definition of quality, it is a failure. This does not mean that the wine has to be sterile, but it does mean that it should not have active spoilage microbes modifying the sensory / chemical properties of the wine post bottling. SO2 level should be sufficient to minimize oxidative degradation of the wine over its projected lifespan, and care should have been taken with the choice and screening of bottling materials and procedures to ensure minimal disruption of the wine on the way to bottle.
2.) If (and only IF) a wine meets the first criteria, the next step up in quality is that the wine should be well made and without obvious flaws, faults, and off aromas. This means that the wine should not have perceptible volatile acidity/ethyl acetate, sulfide problems, contamination by Brettanomyces, chlorinated anisoles, non-wine chemicals, or other non-wine aromas or contamination.
3.) The next step up in quality would be that the wine reflects the variety and / or appellation which it is labeled to represent. This refers both to basic chemical attributes, such as remaining within acceptable pH / TA / alcohol ranges, as well as to aromatic signature and phenolic composition. To me, it is preferable to blend / supplement / manipulate the must or wine as needed to achieve this basic definition of quality than to choose not to do so out of some inflexible, philosophical belief in ‘hands off’ winemaking. ‘Hands off’ winemaking is to be reserved for perfect fruit conditions ONLY! (The old adage is ‘God makes vinegar, Man makes wine.’) This is the basic quality level for wine as a viable consumer beverage.
4.) My fourth level of quality is that the wine should be a delicious, harmonious example of the style which has been chosen consciously by the winemaker, or which has been developed over time working with the site in question. Up to this point in my quality hierarchy, the wine could have met all of the above goals, and still be an unpleasant beverage. This is the first point at which I require the wine to be pleasant to consume. Worldwide, the great majority of wineries likely strive to operate in this level of quality.
5.) Which brings me to the next step in quality; doing the work in the vineyard to produce fruit which requires the absolute minimum in winery manipulation to achieve the above objectives. This level allows for wines that are less contrived, and more able to convey a sense of place and seasonal variation. Anyone who talks about ‘Terroir’ without achieving this level of quality is absolutely full of it. Brett is not ‘Terroir.’ Neither can a wine with excessive sulfides be considered an example of ‘Terroir.’ Wines blended from multiple appellations spread across vast distances have nothing to do with ‘Terroir’ either.
6.) My sixth and final level of quality would include such things as longevity of the wine, ability to develop interesting and complimentary secondary characteristics, and typicity specific to the place the wine was grown. This is where things start to become more idealistic and less objective. Where previously defined levels can be applied to wine as a simple consumer product, this is where I start to slip into wine as something more lyrical and worthy of legend and tradition. This is the level at which the best estates operate in the best of vintages, where you will find Grand Cru Bourgogne and Alsace and the very best German wines at. This is level at which a very few New World wineries operate as well. This is the level of wine quality that inspires me, whether or not I ever actually am able to attain it in the wines that I work with.
